SUNIL CHATTERJEE Vs. RENT CONTROL AND EVICTION OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed for a writ of certiorari for quashing the impugned notice dated 12 -1 - 1995 (Annexure 1 to the petition) and the orders dated 9 -11 -1994 (Annexure 5), 13 -11 -1994 (Annexure 7) and 1 -2 -1994 (Annexure 9 to the petition) and for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to restore the possession of the disputed house to the petitioners.

(2.) I have heard Shri Ravi Kant and Sri S. K. Garg learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Ranjit Saxena, learned counsel for the respondents No. 3, and the learned standing counsel for respondents No. 1 and 2, and have perused the writ petition, counter and rejoinder affidavit.

(3.) IN paragraph 20 it is alleged that after such declaration of vacancy notice was issued to late Sukumar Chatterjee. It is alleged that by this time process server became more intelligent and he submitted a report dated 11 -11 -1994 vide Annexure 6. According to this report at the lime of inspection the house in dispute was locked and the process -server could not meet either late Sukumar Chatterjee or any member of his family and his whereabouts was not ascertainable hence he pasted the notice on the outer door of the house in dispute. IN paragraph 22 it is alleged that the aforesaid report is a got up document. Sukumar Chatterjee was physically occupying his house till his death on 4 -12 -1994 (wrongly mentioned on 8 -12 -1994 ). He was old and aged man and there was no question of non -availability at the time of service of notice. The report of the Process Server was therefore, clearly a fabricated and manufactured document. IN paragraph No. 23 it is alleged that the respondent No. 3 is a very influential person and is a prominent anti -social element of the town. The entire administration is dancing to his tune and act ing as his service agents. IN paragraph 24 it is alleged that on 13 -11 -1994 the respondent No. 1 allotted the disputed premises to respondent No. 3 vide Annexure 7 to the petition. IN paragraph 25 it is alleged that although the order of allotment was passed on 13 -11 -1994 attempt were made to forcibly dispossess late Sukumar Chatterjee from the house in dispute on the same day itself. However, the same could not be possible and hence on the next day i. e. 4 -11 -1994 the respondent No. 3 applied that possession be delivered to him through police force. A true copy of the letter dated 1 -12 -1994 is Annexure 8 to the petition. IN paragraph 26 it is stated that the facts stated by Tausif Ahmad, respondent No. 3 in the aforesaid application are absolutely false and baseless. He never approached late Sukumar Chatterjee for delivery of possession and Sukumar Chatterjee during his life -time remained unaware of the allotment proceedings. IN paragraph 27 it is stated that the respondent No. 1 within a minute of moving of the aforesaid application dated 1 -12 -1994 passed an order directing late Sukumar Chatterjee to deliver possession of the house in dispute. A true copy of the order dated 1 -12 1994 is Annexure 9. IN paragraph 28 it is stated that again the Process Server put up a stereo typed report without even visiting the house in dispute, and in fact his report was written sitting in his office. A true copy of the report dated 1 -12 -1994 is Annexure 10 to the petition.